Forum:Organizing ships (Registry vs. Alphabetically)
Having started this in the decommission article, it occured to me that this would be a markedly better location to discuss this. When having a series of ships in an article (like decommission), which should be used: A, alphabetically: *USS Ajax (NCC-73342) *USS Beatrix (NCC-321) *USS Calamari (NCC-11992) *USS Detroit (NX-42) *USS Zebra (NCC-101) or B, by registry: *USS Detroit (NX-42) *USS Zebra (NCC-101) *USS Beatrix (NCC-321) *USS Calamari (NCC-11992) *USS Ajax (NCC-73342) Now, the arguments to date are as follows: For alphabetizing: *The name is the first thing seen. Alphabetical order appears more orderly; going by registry (which typically comes after the name) just looks chaotic. It makes everything appear to be in a jumbled mess and one can't easily find the ship one may be looking for. 14:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC) *Organising by registry is all fine and good as long as you have a organised and consistent system, which Trek does not have. Also you will (almost) always have a ships name but you don't necessarily get a registry along with the ship. Given this organising by ship name is the best system as it removes an ambiguity that arises from the lack of a registry. - 15:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC) For registry: *I'm following United States Naval tradition, for example; http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=139 , and cruisers are here: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=800&ct=4 . Franz Joseph lists all ships in the by registry, as does Jackill (If memory serves... I haven't had a Jackill book in more than a decade). All military ships are logged by registry, all civilian ships are logged alphabetically... Or that seems to be the current tradition. To me, who has worked with ship registries for many a year, the alphabetized listings are chaotic and disorganized looking. Now, these things said, let's continue the discussion: Continuing discussion Jrofeta, you commented that there will always be a ship without a registry... in my experience, that ship always goes first (assumed to have a registry of NCC-000). If there is more than one registry-less ship, then they are alphabetized. Using the above example: *USS Ajax (NCC-73342) *USS Beatrix (NCC-321) *USS Calamari *USS Detroit (NX-42) *USS Zebra By registry: *USS Calamari *USS Zebra *USS Detroit (NX-42) *USS Beatrix (NCC-321) *USS Ajax (NCC-73342) And I disagree with the comment that Star Trek does not have a consistant system. If that were the case, this wouldn't seem so odd to me... I wouldn't think... Part of the reason this bothers me is that there does seem to be a consistant system... at least with published works... they are all following military tradition. So, anyway, what do you folks think? Aabh 22:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC) ---- I still think alphabetical looks better, and I agree with Jrofeta. If there's no registry, why bother going by name then registry? It's better to be consistent. Maybe that's how it's done in the military, but there's no rule that we have to do it that way, and it doesn't mean their system is faultless (I'd assume they take other factors into account when/if perusing such a list, but that's another discussion). To me, the old "KISS" rule ("keep it simple stupid"--not that I'm calling anyone stupid) is always the best rule of thumb. The simpler, the better. I've said that before. There seems to be this urge to overcomplicate things, for the sake of looking "cool" or "officious" or something, but that just makes it harder than it has to be. Like the very adding of extensions: If we have more than one ship of the same name (Enterprise for instance), then it makes sense to add the registry to disambiguate. But if there's only one "USS Whatever", what difference does that extension make? It can be included in the article, as is done, to tell readers that this ship has a registry of NCC-whatever. Beyond that the registry extensions seem frivolous. Also, as I've stated before (and not just in comments to Aabh), the name is usually the form of reference to the ship. If we said, "Did you know the NCC-73342 defeated the Klingons at Narendra III?", the reader would be scratching their head, wondering what the "NCC-73342" is. They'd look for the name: "Ohhhhh, it's the USS Ajax." The name tells more about the ship than the registry. 22:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC) :I kind of agree that the registry in the titles aren't necessary unless you have to disambiguate two ships of the same name - check out this link to Mem Alpha: Federation starships. It would really simplify the ships. :Not sure what to say about how to list them though. I guess I'd go with alphabeticalizing too. You could also create a table that can re-sort the list to the way you like, like the episode listing on MA's pages. (But that may be too much work). --Hawku 00:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC) ---- Uh, guys, here's a thought... How 'bout listing them both ways? Both Memory Alpha and Memory Beta have Federation starships and Federation starship registries (as do we, in fact). But, if we're just talking about on the articles like Decommission, then how 'bout chronologically? That seems most logical to me. I mean, if you're looking for a decommissioned ship, you're probably most interested in when it was decommissioned. At least, that's my take on it. --TimPendragon 00:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC) :Well... it seems like I certainly know how to stop a conversation... Anyone out there? --TimPendragon 23:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC) ::I'm in mid-terms, so I'm just slow to respond, that's all. :D This is what Sas also recommended... I think that's a great compromise... though I'd like people to consider that this isn't really a "cool" or "officious" (Borrowing terms :D) procedure... it actually looks to me to be unprofessional... like sorting the characters by first name. Sure, it might be easier to find certain people (Like your female friends whom have likely gotten married since you last saw them), but it isn't the accepted convention. And once you are used to that convention, doing it the other way... well, frankly, looks bad. Aabh 06:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC) :Responding to Tim... That's pretty much how we've been doing it, so I figured that's how it'll go on. Like the saying goes, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. 14:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)